The ACB's decision not to classify "Saints Row 4" marks the first time this has happened since the new R18+ rating was released

Australian gamers, if you were looking forward to "Saints Row 4" coming out later this summer, you may now have to wait a bit longer.

The Australian Classification Board (ACB) refused classification of "Saints Row 4," which means that it cannot be sold in Australia's retail stores (it's even illegal to own the title in certain parts of the country). According to the board, the new game has unnecessary sexual undertones and sends the wrong message about drug use.

“In the Board’s opinion, Saints Row IV, includes interactive, visual depictions of implied sexual violence which are not justified by context," said ACB. “In addition, the game includes elements of illicit or proscribed drug use related to incentives or rewards. Such depictions are prohibited by the computer games guidelines.”

Volition, "Saints Row 4's" developer, said it will create a special version of the game just for Australia. This new version will cut out the sex and drug use, as part of the ACB's recommendations.

"Saints Row 4" was due to be released on August 22 in Australia, but there's no word on when the new version will be complete and whether it'll still make that deadline.

"Saints Row 4" is an action-adventure, open-world video game that takes place five years after "Saints Row: The Third." The Saints are kidnapped and placed in a virtual simulation after an alien invasion occurs, and the Zin Empire must be destroyed.

In January of this year, new classification guidelines were released to include an R18+ category. This particular option means no one under 18 years of age can purchase the game.

The ACB's decision not to classify "Saints Row 4" marks the first time this has happened since the new rating was released.

quote: Some people got beds to sleep on, where they can crawl under the covers and have a good night's rest. But other people, they don't got beds at all. Instead they gotta find an alleyway, or a park bench where some fucker's not gonna stab them. But just because they don't got beds doesn't mean they're homeless. 'Cause guess what? They've got the biggest home of any of us. It's called the streets! And right now, we're all standing in their home, so maybe we should show them some goddamn respect. If this is their home, they've got a right to keep it clean, don't they? And sometimes on the streets, a broom just ain't gonna fucking cut it. That's when you gotta get a shotgun!

For one thing, games are a completely different medium to film. Gaming is more interactive than merely watching and listening to film. When consuming film, there is no active engagement with the acts portrayed on screen through physically input. When gaming, a person has the ability to actively physically engage with the actions portrayed. Whilst this engagement may be through a convoluted device such as a controller, it is still much more direct than film and thus should be treated more cautiously by censors. It may sound crazy but there is no barrier other than censorship that will stop simulated violent crime games from being a second-nature experience. Theoretically there is no current reason why sex dolls cannot be fitted with controllers, allowing 'gamers' to physically act out rape fantasies with a frightening level of near-reality. Is that something that should be allowed, simply because someone is "an adult"?

Australia thankfully has had the sense to enact sensible gun laws in response to the Port Auther massacre in the 1990s. Since then we've had no mass killings of note despite the arguable rise of terrorism. Contrary to this, mass killings have continued and increased in many other nations. I think with this sensible approach to violence in our community we have prevented a lot of carnage and I see no reason why a similar approach - with checks and balances naturally - should not apply to other aspects of society where violence raises it's ugly head.

Whether a person is of adult age should also not be the only criteria for obtaining violent media. Several people over the age of 18 have a mental age that is not considered adult.

A sensible society should look to develop licenses for mental maturity that are required before engaging with violent media of any description. Such a measure, assuming it was developed in a balanced manner, could contribute towards a lowering of violent behaviour yet still allow people to experience the altered realities that gaming allows. If you think this is too restrictive, think ahead to the likely advances in technology. Within 10 years screens will be as big as a room allows; games will be controlled by full-body controllers if not wetware; people will walk the streets with only a cursory consideration for what is happening around them with the ability to play immersive games on the run whilst barely keeping an eye (or sensor) out for traffic or the weather. Just like every other change civilised societies have faced in the past, gaming must be subject to sensible regulation. Anarchy has never worked and never will.

What you're saying sounds good, but trouble is that when others start deciding upon the morals for society as a whole then I think we begin to go down a slippery slope.

If the R+18 designation was supposed to be 18+ and older to buy, why then make up new rules to limit even that. What other rules are we going to start applying? Ban anything to do with prostitution, ban anything to do with what anyone has issues with, religion, sex, guns, drugs, war, etc. What's next, start banning any of games that teens can buy that's has any sort of hints at what you're attempting to censor? This is removing the ability of even the parents to make conscious decisions for game purchases for their children.

So what if it is interactive, the majority of gamers can usually differentiate between reality and fantasy, yes, I know that there are some that it blends and they live in their own world, but those are extreme cases and should receive therapy or be locked up. But to have this sort of censorship to determine the morality of the society is it truly representative of the people? The power of this small body of people to determine the morales for a society kind of astounds me and worries me, but I'm not Australian so, that's Australia problem.

Just think maybe Australia may want to enact rules to limit giving out driver's licenses until you get a mental examination to determine if you're mentally fit to drive a car because that is a dangerous weapon itself, though I kind of wonder if we shouldn't be doing that sometimes, but like I said it becomes a slippery slope as to what is next and where do you stop.

Before making laws/rules, society has to determine if said actions will make the country better or do more harm. I can't see censorship in this sort of draconian fashion being helpful to the society because it removes the ability of others making decisions for themselves and others imposing their morale decisions upon the majority.

Hey fascist, that's some good propaganda about censorship and trampling the rights of the individual there. Is there a Totalitarian newsletter where I can read more of this drivel?

quote: Australia thankfully has had the sense to enact sensible gun laws in response to the Port Auther massacre in the 1990s.

Mass shootings are statistical outliers that make a big impression, get a lot of press, but don't tell the real story.

Australia's gun control policy has been a massive failure. The previous 25 years before the gun ban, Australia violent gun-related crime and armed robbery with firearms were on a steady decline. However this is the statistics from just one year after the gun ban:

-Australia-wide, homicides were up 3.2 percent -Australia-wide, assaults were up 8.6 percent-Australia-wide, armed robberies were up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent).-Hot Burglaries are up 300% (where the intruders come in while you are home and knows that you are home).-In the state of Victoria, homicides with firearms were up 300 percent.

And yet the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said, "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm."

It's time to state it plainly: Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. Preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense does not end violent crime - it just makes victims more vulnerable! Society benefits from ordinary people who accept the responsibilities of firearm ownership - not from gun-control laws.

quote: Mass shootings are statistical outliers that make a big impression, get a lot of press, but don't tell the real story.

Lets be realistic.Since the gun bans in Australia there has been no mass gun massacres.Prior to the implementation of the gun laws, 112 people were killed in 11 mass shootings.

Homicide rates in Australia are only 1.2 per 100,000 people, with less than 15 percent of these resulting from firearms.In the USA however it's Homicide rate is 5 per 100,000 people, with the majority being gun related.

But you are correct, it was in a decline before the bans were introduced, but you can't just ban guns and hope everything will end well.The Australian people as a whole don't want guns in society and they still don't. - And frankly, it's not like I feel in anymore danger knowing I don't have a gun.

quote: Since the gun bans in Australia there has been no mass gun massacres.

Yes but as I already explained, so what? You don't have a magic eight ball, you cannot tell me for a fact you would have no mass shootings in the same time period without the gun ban.

And as I've explained, mass shootings don't tell the whole story.

quote: The Australian people as a whole don't want guns in society and they still don't

I don't believe you can speak for them as a "whole". Logic tells me if the Australian people didn't want guns, the Government wouldn't have had to force over 600,000 guns to be surrendered from it's citizens, and waste over 500 million dollars doing it. If the people didn't want guns, why did they own so many?

quote: In the USA however it's Homicide rate is 5 per 100,000 people, with the majority being gun related.

Yeah well not to stereotype, but I'm not aware of Australia having the kinds of problems we have. When you share a poorly defended border with massive drug-exporting countries just to your south, you're probably going to have lots more violence.

If you looked deeper into those numbers, you would see the number of those crimes where a lawfully owned handgun was involved were far lower. Like I said, gun control just impacts law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care.

quote: Logic tells me if the Australian people didn't want guns, the Government wouldn't have had to force over 600,000 guns to be surrendered from it's citizens

You call that logic? He said "as a whole" Australia doesn't want guns, i.e. the vast majority. He didn't say 99.9% of them don't. Gun fans generally have more than one, so it's very likely that 600,000 figure represents only 200,000 people, or less than 1% of their population.

Use some critical thought before aimlessly citing numbers without context.

quote: Like I said, gun control just impacts law abiding citizens. Criminals don't care.

The point of gun control is to reduce the circulation and production of guns in the long haul, making it harder for at least a good fraction of criminals to get a gun (obviously you can't stop all or even most). You should also see effects like robbers being unarmed if they expect most households to be gun free (if they get caught with a gun then sentences are way more severe), whereas in the US their mentality is shoot-or-be-shot.

Having said that, I don't think second amendment proponents are unreasonable in the US. There are so many guns in the US that gun control would be an exercise in futility. It'd take 20+ years to start seeing any of the benefits I mentioned above. The homeowner in my example above also faces the same shoot-or-be-shot dilemma, so I see their point.

So yes, you're right that circumstances matter, and the US is pretty much a hopeless case.

Still, things like the "stand your ground" law are scary. If Zimmerman walks, then anyone can kill whomever they want as long as they bang their head on something to show there was a struggle. That'd be an awful precedent, especially for minorities that get targeted for whatever reason.

If you're interested in the real situation, it's more complex.I would like to note two things though.

1.Crime in Australia as a whole is not worse. There have been no massacres in the last 17 years and the 17 before 1996 had several. None of this can definitely be attributed to gun control. There are all sorts of issues to consider like other changes in society and how crime is reported. It's unlikely to be considered rationally in much U.S. debate in any case because it's so politicized. Anybody claiming that gun control doesn't work based on the Australian example is hard to comprehend though. At best, you could argue that it's hard to prove a positive impact. Then again, Australia had no gun problems in comparison to the U.S. to begin with.

2.The U.S. has a serious problem with gun crime. Which empirical evidence do you want to see, take a pick?The most telling, the most need of addressing I would think, is the intentional homicide rate in comparison to other developed countries. 4.8 times higher than Australia. 8 times higher than Germany. 12 times higher than Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...Yes, this is for the most part firearm deaths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_... about 75% of them in the U.S. In Australia, it's about 13%.Let's consider why this might be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_ca...Gun ownership could be part of it, but look at the rate of ownership in places like France and Finland. They own a lot of guns but maybe they have some better controls.

There might be some sane argument against blaming this on gun availability and lack of control in relation to other OECD countries. If there is, this other difference needs to be identified and corrected because the United States is far, far worse in this measurement.

I have no idea why you got downvoted. The irrational fear of firearms (hoplophobia) displayed by supposedly educated adults is bordering on insanity. It is a sign of immaturity and is basically a projection of distrust in their own ability to responsibly handle firearms onto the rest of society. Subconsciously these people feel that "Since I don't think I can be trusted with a firearm, no one can be." Then they take this one step further and use irrational fear to justify draconian censorship of even images of firearms or anything related to them. It’s embarrassing.

quote: It is a sign of immaturity and is basically a projection of distrust in their own ability to responsibly handle firearms onto the rest of society.

Umm, what? Since when do we trust everyone to be responsible? I suppose we should get rid of age limits for purchasing alcohol and cigarettes? Let's get rid of licenses and mandatory insurance for driving too, because hey, what's the worst that can happen since everyone is responsible?

I just saw this, so let me get it straight. It sounds like you are making the argument that since there are age limits on alcohol purchases and cigarettes, any depiction of smoking or drinking should be censored in movies and video games. Also, since privilege of driving is regulated by age limits and other restrictions, video games and movies with any content that has to do with cars or driving need to be censored. That about covers it, right?

I'm saying because the original article and the comments dealt with censoring gun related content which apparently you feel is okay since gun ownership and use has limitations (such as age and criminal or mental health background).

Are you aware this argument makes you sound like a lunatic? My point was that none of these activities or their movie or video game depiction should be censored. At all. And that guns are only being singled out because there is an epidemic of crazy people who suffer from a condition known as irrational fear of inanimate objects.